Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Keith Gregory v. United States
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 15-10333 · judgment September 25, 2017
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Questions presented
Following convictions on one count of violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (conspiracy to commit mail fraud), one violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud) and one violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (mail fraud), the trial court sentenced Petitioner Keith Gregory to 120 months. All witnesses testified that Gregory was shielded from knowledge of the criminal enterprise, yet the trial court labeled him the “linchpin” and assessed a loss value of $60 million, a number pulled out of thin air without supporting evidence. Gregory then received a significantly longer sentence than others the jury found far more culpable and who had received millions of dollars. THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED ARE:
-
Was Petitioner Gregory’s sentence unconstitutionally disproportionate to the co-defendants and to the amount of the loss because the lower courts never calculated the amount of loss?
-
Was Gregory’s sentence unconstitutionally disproportionate to the co-defendants because it was based upon the false assumption that he was the “lynchpin” of the alleged conspiracy?
-
Was Gregory’s sentence unconstitutional given that he received a total of only $68,640.00 from the alleged conspiracy?
-
Was Gregory’s sentence unconstitutional because the trial court refused to apply the mitigating factors that would have properly reduced his sentence to a maximum of 18 to 24 months?
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Julio A. Jaramillo
Law Offices of Julio A. Jaramillo
For respondent
Noel John Francisco
Jones Day
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Proceedings
- Oct 01 2018Petition DENIED.
- Jun 27 2018DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/24/2018.
- Jun 18 2018Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
- Jun 08 2018Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 13, 2018)